You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
I’ll try my best to do it in cliff-note-esque form, instead of the usual drab 10page essay, just for ease (and b/c I’m tired as fook and desperately need some dindins).
1) - In other sports/games, mainly due to our biology, men have an inherent advantage over women (athletically anyway). We don’t have that problem in poker (it being a mind-game, where each sex is on a level playing field). So on the point of ‘natural ability’, or whatever you want to call it, we don’t have that issue there.
2) - If people want to create ‘women only’ games, whereby men are held back from playing due to no fault of their own, where do you draw the line? What about age-limited tourneys, or ethnic-specific events? The minute you decide to exclude people, you’re creating problems. If you’re for the motion, you need to ask yourself WHY you believe that we need women-only games in poker, and what benefit they can have on the poker economy, not just for those taking part. These games should benefit both the IN-group, AND the out-group.
3) - If for example you said, “we want to encourage new female players to give poker a shot”, then aren’t you advertising these games directly to women who would want to try poker, but just don’t want to play against men? Does that not seem a little crazy, to you? You’d accomplish the same, and THEN some by advertising ‘Rookies only’ games. Where new players can get their feet wet without feeling intimidated by the more experienced players. Isn’t that typically a big part of ones’ argument for trying to get women to try poker? Why stop there? Advertise to men and women, old and young, of all backgrounds and ethnicities.
4) - In an age of equal rights and the erosion of social norms, this would only serve to build yet more barriers, dividing people. If women want equal rights (and who doesn’t, right?) then there can’t be any hypocritical double-standard when they want to sit down and play a game they enjoy.
…By segregating the sexes, you’re only drawing attention to a fabricated social stigma that men and women are different. That in some cases, they need to be separated (for the ‘greater good’).
(which brings up another problematic topic of ‘subjective greater good’, yatta yatta yatta)
If you’re lobbying for the separation of men and women in a game that you like to play, because you’d have a more comfortable experience around those of the same sex, the problem is with you. The rest of us shouldn’t be discriminated against because you’re uncomfortable hanging around people that have bigger muscles, or some junk between their legs. You need to challenge your own feelings and opinions of social situations involving the opposite sex, or heck, maybe you've just been hanging around with an awfully dire set of people of a different gender. Either way, it’s a prejudice, backwards, 20th century attitude that needs to freakin' die already.
EDIT: Fml on my attempt at cliff-notage. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh gg
Wow slightly over the top, it isn't sexist first of all it is the same as the major sites advertising European only or UK only. It is there to attract customers from all areas.
I am more than comfortable playing poker with anyone that is not the point I was trying to make, but as per usual there is also a complete jobs worth who takes everything as a direct insult.
Isn't there a female WSOOP event and an over 50 one? Not 100% but I have heard something along these lines from somewhere.
This thread is not intended to alienate players but to bring more in for specific reasons, if this attracts just 1 new player then surely that's good yes?
I understand your issues but I feel you have gone well over the top, also the last bolded paragraph is just childish and immature. How about have a female only tournament to attract new customers and then a male only one?
Also from this point onwards can you stop smashing your keyboard like a caveman and making childish remarks to make you feel better about yourself and remember this is a forum where you can express your side in a more adult like manner like others have prior to you.
Thread has gone out of control.
Ladies MTTs are fine, where there is a demand for them and where they will be successful.
WSOP is an example of where it works (check the numbers)
Sky Poker is an example of a place where it wont work. Right now. (check the numbers)
Any discussion beyond that about discrimination/sexism etc is just pointless, a waste of time
Equal rights topics like these deserve to be public. Anything you want to say to me, just say it here, s'all good.
"When you keep sitting on the fence, you eventually get splinters in your @rse"
Can you please point out there this thread went "out of control"? (in your opinion anyway)
I'd also argue the exact opposite, RE:
"Any discussion beyond that about discrimination/sexism etc is just pointless, a waste of time
If anything, debating social sexism, how we deal with discrimination, intolerating the intolerant, or other equal rights issues...
is WAY more important than whether we should introduce a new MTT set-up on a fairly unknown site.
Ya know, i'mma jus' sayin'
This is a poker chat room, KEY WORD = POKER! You have twisted this and blown it well out of proportion. I agree with what you are saying, I don't want it to come across the way you feel it is. If it does then apologies as stated in a prior post. I was merely looking at ways of getting more new players in, I saw that this is something other sites are doing but this is not and thought it was a good idea to put it out there. Again apologies for you taking it the wrong way but I am assuming you enjoy a good argument online hence your previous posts.
Also this is not an equal rights topic.
Was getting into a batkini v Smitalos war of words.
"Which, yer know, I love......." (but so do 'some' mods as it's a ready made 'potentially awkward thread' closure excuse)
"Well. I'm angry. And not because I'm in it, but because it degrades women, which I hate. And the culprit, whoever he is, is in this room. Or she, it could be a woman. Women are as filthy as men. Not naming any names - I don't know any - but women... are... dirty"
http://facedl.com/fvideo.php?f=onqoeqiieaxa&david-brent-hates-sexism
Ger
Excellent self-promoter.
"Also this is not an equal rights topic."
Yes, it is. This is the problem.
Women only tourneys discriminate against those that arn't women. Your only retort that I've been able to make out, is the one regarding "encouraging new players to try poker", which I argued against in my post, and explained why that reason isn't valid. If you could debate some of the issues I brought up in my lengthy post regarding the ethical problems with XXX-only games, I'd greatly appreciate it. Nowhere in that post, or any subsequent one, have I personally attacked or insulted you.
If you want to get personally attached to your beliefs and opinions, be my guest. Personally, I try to favour a detachment from all emotion when debating. And, any flaw you see in my arguments, I welcome GREATLY, for that's how we improve as individuals. Just because I try to expose flaws in your arguments, does not mean that it has to get personal, or that it is an attack on you in any way whatsoever.
If you feel that my lengthy post made on page 2 is in any way a personal attack at you, then debating topics like this on the forum shouldn't be what you spend your free-time doing. I'm desperately trying to challenge your stance on why your favour the motion addressed in OP, and get to the root of your reasons as to why you believe it. Your passive-aggressive posts do nothing but alienate those begging for an informed discussion.
Instead of replying to the points I made, and why they are flawed or incorrect, you've taken it upon yourself to neglect all discussion with my altogether in favour of a "Who can reach the moral high-ground first", slanging match. One of which, I don't wish to partake in.
Take a breather, have a cuppa, and then come back and kick my huge (but still rather sexy) @ss on WHY I'm wrong, and WHY you're of the opinion you are.
Who knows it might be a massive success.....
iv always liked a bit of girl on girl action
None of my posts were personal attacks at batkini, and I'd encourage people here to go back and try and find for themselves where this thread went 'awry'.
I'm trying to wage a war on what's considered 'normal', and challenge peoples' preconceptions, in a sea of posters who either whack in a few words, or a +1 on the topic....
OR those that think that any intellectual battle of ideals is somehow too hot for the forum to handle, jeering different unfamilar new ideas because it makes them feel uncomfortable, or as if it's a personal attack on them if someone tries to tweak their opinions, relieved when a mod comes in and closes the thread before any genuine discussion takes place.
You guys wanna talk about how cute the new royal baby is all damn day, be my guest. But to villianise someone promoting active discussion and debate between conflicting ideas, is absolutely outrageous.
imo.
Love you JJ.
It makes me glad that my dedication to spreading reason and logic in this forum has been noted. tyvm
"This is such a bad idea. js"
Hypocrite springs to mind
Carl
Smit
Smitty
Smitalol
Fishcake
Spewy mong
Luckbox
Arrogant snidey little sh1 t
But for ease, I respond to all of the above. It's simpler that way :P Nicknames ftw Lamby
This is why you need to keep the vlog going, to answer these kind of viewer questions!!!!!
Instead of debating the topic at hand, you've resorted to personal attacks, that are fwiw, pretty baseless.
I could bet you that out of everyone in this forum, I'm in the top 3 when it comes to the 'Average length of posts'.
2 insults in the space of as many lines. You're only emphasising my point about you reacting on an emotional level.
Can we please discuss the topic at hand, or do we have to waste our time on ultimately pointless posts like this. We get it, you pointed out 1 post where I didn't post a 1000 word essay replying to OP. I would have hoped you wouldn't take my example so literally.
I agree there is a market for it where women would probably find it better live to play in women only games. Merely because of the somewhat horrible men that may sit around the table with their ego and aggro mouthy stuff that goes on.
But I do not agree the women are at a low skill level overall and to assume that is somewhat patronising.
Your sex does not mean your going to good or bad. Everyone starts at the same level.
If we are talking about "how do we get more women into the game" well I don't think the answer is to isolate them away from horrible men. Espcially online where you have no idea if the person is a man or women.
It just sounds like to me that your advocatin starting a tourny where only weak players can play each other.
And if you a stroung player and a female then your going to clean up.
seems a bit self serving